'Playing the English card'
Mark Field MP has answered your questions on today's interviews blog. In his answer to a question from 'Harlequin.dane' he writes:
"Since the expulsion of most of the hereditary peers, I have, in principle, favoured the option of a fully or largely-elected House of Lords. However, I recognise that such an outcome is unlikely to be within the realms of practical politics, not least as the House of Lords as currently constituted is likely to be hostile and there would be little agreement as to the timing or form of elections. I would prefer to see the creation of a completely new federal parliament. Four, full, national parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with most of the existing powers of the House of Commons and over them a federal United Kingdom parliament, which would debate defence and foreign affairs, make treaties and administer a cohesion fund for the poorer parts of the UK. It would be funded by a per GDP levy on the national parliaments. There would be no need for extra politicians, as the national parliaments would send representatives to the UK parliament and meet together for its debates, which could be held in the old House of Lords chamber. I appreciate it is a bold, indeed a radical, suggestion but I believe that the only way to restore the balance of the British constitution, which had served us so well for so long, is to offer the British people this fairer alternative in a referendum once we have won the next election."
Brown's Scottishness does not yet appear to have undermined him in any serious way with English voters but there are a number of CCHQ tacticians - and key figures at The Daily Telegraph - who think 'the English card' is the best way of putting David Cameron into Downing Street. David Cameron raised the West Lothian question in his first parliamentary encounter with Brown and backbench Tory MPs have pummeled Mr Brown on the issue at PMQs.
In the Q&A Mark also critiques the A-list:
"Whilst I strongly agree that the Conservative Party should reach out to embrace a broader range of candidates, my biggest objection to the ‘A List’ (and any other Party list system such as applies for European elections) is that it encourages many Conservative candidates and future MPs to regard their role first and foremost as a mouthpiece for the Party leadership or CCHQ. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional role of a backbencher, which is to hold the Executive to account (a role every bit as important for government MPs as it is for Opposition backbenchers as this country has learnt to its detriment over the past decade)."




















and administer a cohesion fund for the poorer parts of the UK.
Surely to be consistent, given such a degree of devolution on other matters any kind of relief for poorer areas would then have to be left to the national or regional parliaments to decide inside their own boundaries - in fact pretty much this amounts to the Council of the Isles that the English Democrats favour.
I think issues such as welfare are best decided bat a UK level and no one above or below and that there has to be a certain amount of Federal Law with regard to policing and Criminal Justice, and on Defence and Counter Terrorist policy, and transport & communications infrastructure these have to be matters for the UK parliament, but allowing for certain amounts of devolution equal throughout the UK and maybe as much at a County and more local level too - Scotland included historic counties are frequenly forgotten about these days and people in Scotland and Wales don't want to be dominated by the Scottish Lowlands or South Wales any more and indeed maybe less than they want to be dominated by a Westminster orientated set up - devolution as it has happened so far has paid little attention to Highland Scotland, the West of Scotland, the Islands and parts of Wales outside the South.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | August 07, 2007 at 11:57
David Cameron had the following exchange with Andrew Marr on 25th June 2006 as repeatedly reported on my blog and backed up by the BBC Sunday AM transcript.
ANDREW MARR: Sure - another area of constitutional argument just at the moment is the whole business of the Scots and the English. Lots of people are saying now there should be English votes for English laws - Ken Clarke is clearly attracted by that - and there’s quite hubbub now saying that the Scots are getting too much public money, that the old Barnett formula, in fact Joel Barnett himself has said this, needs to be looked at again. Are the Scots getting too much public money at the moment, proportionately?
DAVID CAMERON: I don’t have any plans to change the arrangements. Obviously we’re in opposition, we have the opportunity to look at these things and we should do so. But I don’t have any plans to make changes. And we should look at funding on the basis of need. And I think that’s the right way, right way round. But I want, you know, I am a passionate Unionist, I think that Scotland brings a huge amount to the United Kingdom. The Scottish people bring a huge amount to the United Kingdom and I don’t want, and I’m a Cameron, there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins.
=======
How can the Conservative Party now campaign effectively on the West Lothian question unless they first do the sensible thing and rid themselves of Mr Cameron?
Posted by: Martin Cole | August 07, 2007 at 12:04
Are you saying that all those Unionists within the Conservative party like myself should be expelled Martin?
Posted by: malcolm | August 07, 2007 at 12:09
I do not think 'the English card' should be played as a way of putting David Cameron into Downing Street; but as the right thing to do in highlighting and addressing the unjust settlement forced on English people as a result of a completely unfair devolution process elsewhere in the union.
The argument that an English Parliament would require another layer of politicians is just another of Labour's red herrings as Mark Field ably demonstrates. There is an urgent need to resolve the imbalance devolution has brought about. This Labour government claims to be against two-tier systems in areas such as education and healthcare for example.
Yet it has constructed a two-tier system through devolution, with English students, teachers, patients and healthcare professionals all financially worse off than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. Of even greater injustice is the fact the tax revenues of English people are being used to subsidise the more generous services in Scotland, Wales and NI that are denied to English people.
Posted by: Cllr Tony Sharp | August 07, 2007 at 12:13
Why is MF going on about the A-list? That's sooooo yesterday darling.
Posted by: Felicity Mountjoy | August 07, 2007 at 12:14
I think this idea of a 'federal parliament' as outlined by Mark Field above sounds eminently practical. Whether it is actually different to other ideas that people have had for a federal parliament, ot it is just that Mr. Field has a more straightforward and concise way of stating his ideas, I don't know.
Of course it would necessitate quite an upheaval, but one thing has to be said, and that is that, this sort of idea could never be achieved under a labour government, as first and foremost in any politically minded labour thinker is ensuring that the proposed 'institution' or whatever will produce a majority of labour votes at all times! It has almost been achieved in the HoL's.
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | August 07, 2007 at 12:15
One UK/one parliament, with localism to counties etc as indicated above by Yet Another Anon, or else federalism/independence.
The Union has been abrogated by devolution, furthermore in a way that is grossly insulting to England - as with recent meeting between governments of UK and RoI plus Scotland, Wales & NI.
The party needs to construct an equitable policy to resolve matters. Populist remarks such as "..there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins." please no-one either side of the border. Lots of us have mixed UK blood, which makes the idea of dissolving the Union rather ridiculous in logical terms. However, the sentiments exist, so deal with them. Or of course just hold the lid on until the pot boils over uncontrollably!
Posted by: Ken Stevens | August 07, 2007 at 12:36
"Playing the English Card?" What a condescending and derogatory term for those who want democracy and fair play for England.
None of you have a problem with playing the Scottish or Welsh Cards, do you?
Posted by: Carol Banks | August 07, 2007 at 12:47
Before the '97 election the Conservatives said that devolution would trash the Union. They were right. I'm a Unionist by inclination, but we have to face facts. The Union we loved has already been destroyed. The question is where do we go from here.
Posted by: Simon Newman | August 07, 2007 at 12:49
What kind of opposition party is afraid to oppose the deliberate oppression of the majority for fear of being branded one of them and then expect us to vote for them?
Sickening.
Posted by: Carol Banks | August 07, 2007 at 12:52
Felicity, Cameron's opinion poll lead is sooooooo yesterday darlin'!
Posted by: Hmmm | August 07, 2007 at 13:04
A union of equals, sounds like a good idea to me.
Posted by: mark | August 07, 2007 at 13:08
Not a union of equals, mark. Field's proposed "cohesion fund" (just love that euphemism) would be a means for the English to continue subsidising the other nations.
Posted by: Hmmmm | August 07, 2007 at 13:14
Are you saying that all those Unionists within the Conservative party like myself should be expelled Martin?
Posted by: malcolm | August 07, 2007 at 12:09
If the cap fits then wear it and leave of your own accord. Very few us wanted to see the Union reduced to the lopsided Union that it now is with England being for all intents and purposes governed by Scottish socialists. If you want to see a Conservative Party (not that there is one) again governing England then you must realise that only English voters can or will fulfill that dream. Conservativism in Scotland is dead and will remain so for the forseeable future. The reality, like it or not, is recognised by Mark Field and it is the future. Failure to look after and publicise the interests of the English will lead to Brown again being in charge of what will feel like the Revenge for Culloden Party - Part 3, but as they say, many of my best friends are Scots, but I dislike their socialist politicians.
Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh | August 07, 2007 at 13:20
Hmmmm | August 07, 13:14
"cohesion fund" ..would be a means for the English to continue subsidising the other nations."
Not if allocated on more localised geographical basis according to need. I have no problem with, say, remote Sutherland getting proportionately more than Surrey. What I object to is allocation by nation, which could be construed as including a subsidy by the underprivileged of Tower Hamlets to the better-off of Morningside.
Posted by: Ken Stevens | August 07, 2007 at 13:49
Well said Mark.
We urgently need to create a level playing field and the only way to do that is either a) reverse the devolution process to pre-1998 levels, or b) devolve power to the County Councils (or Regional Assemblies) or c) create a Parliament for England that matches the powers held by Hollyrood.
The first is untenable, the second is demonstrably unpopular (see North East referendum), so that leaves us with an English Parliament. No one could argue against the fairness of this proposal and it would be a vote winner.
Posted by: Terry | August 07, 2007 at 13:50
'If the cap fits'....Thanks 'Dontmakelaugh'.You sound like a really nice guy with a really fine tuned political antennae.
I really don't see what's wrong with EVEL together with the abolition of the Barnett formula.That way the Union may be preserved and fainess is ensured both politically and economically for English voters.
Remember if the Union does break up you will have to say goodbye to a significant proportion of the British Army which will make the war in Iraq which you are so keen to fight impossible.
Posted by: malcolm | August 07, 2007 at 14:06
What an excellent suggestion as the largest percentage of the population, its about time someone spoke up for the English.It seems the Labour party dislike the English,as does the BBC,half the forms nowadays do not have English as a nationality and if you are white English you are excluded from applying for certain jobs, I feel like a stranger in my country of birth.
Posted by: R.Rowan | August 07, 2007 at 14:19
malcolm | August 07, 14:06
"Remember if the Union does break up you will have to say goodbye to a significant proportion of the British Army "
You presume that Scots would no longer wish/be able to serve with the South British armed forces. Citizens of West Indies, Fiji, Rep of Ireland, etc, do so. No reason to think that Scots would depart en masse in such an event.
Posted by: Ken Stevens | August 07, 2007 at 14:22
Malcolm. I'll tell you what's wrong with EVoEL, it's for the same reason that a "Grand Committee of MPs" is wrong - It aint a Parliament, ergo the English are 2nd class citizens/subjects, which part don't you understand?
Ken Stevens. "localised geographical basis" Balkanisation, through regionalism, by another name. Come of it, the north east of England (only they had a vote) rejected that idea by 3 - 1.
The latest pinch of salt to the English wounds is the make up of the British-Irish Council.
The United (ha ha) Kingdom.
Ireland.
Wales.
Scotland.
Northern Ireland.
Guernsey.
Jersey.
Isle of Man.
No English representation yet England bore the brunt of the IRA bombing campaign.
All the Scots elected Ministers in the present government have signed up to the Scottish Claim of Rights wherein they swear to prioritise the needs of Scotland.
If the Tories (especially the English elected variety - hang on are there any other types) wish to regain power ever again they must make sure that they at least treat the English electorate equally.
Not to do so will see Tories in oppositin in perpetuity.
Posted by: Patrick Harris | August 07, 2007 at 14:33
Patrick Harris | August 07, 14:33
"...'localised geographical basis' Balkanisation, through regionalism, by another name"
My comment was confined specifically to the cohesion fund, aka a post-Barnett Formula, based on localised need rather than nation.
I absolutely reject English regionalism as any sort of sop re WLQ. I also reject it as a possibility for any other purpose, so long as the concept is tainted with EU divide&conquer.
Posted by: Ken Stevens | August 07, 2007 at 14:59
Democracy isn't working for England. The argument put forward for NOT allowing an English Parliament, ie "England is too big and would dominiate a UK Parliament," is the same argument which could have been used against a UK Parliament, which for 300 years.
The same argument cannot apply to both a UK Parliament AND an English Parliament.
That's just plain stupid.
Posted by: Carol Banks | August 07, 2007 at 15:08
In one way or other most people in all parts of Britain would vote to have some form of Union. If we were starting from first principles it is obvious that the nations in Britain (most of them on one island) would want and need to co-operate. So I am a "Unionist" but I am not opposed to reforming and adapting it and putting it to a referendum.
Secondly looking at where we are now, and thinking clearly, it is obvious that too much power is centralised and that for the most part many decisions would be better made closer to communities and wherever possible by families and individuals.
There have always been different tiers of Govt under both main parties and Govt already directs extra funds to some areas, whatever the part of the UK.
The issue is really that devolution has been botched. What needs to be done is that we should look objectively at what decisions are best made at what tier, with the strong likelihood being that more decisions should be made at county level.
Most of the public like to have a sensible degree of patriotism but are not Nationalists and we should be suspicious of those that try to define themselves in terms of what others are not. Its good to be patriotic about where you live but not healthy if that means your area is good because somehow someones elses area is not. For that reason and others are dislike the whole feeling behind the attacks on MPs because they are from a particular area of Britain.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | August 07, 2007 at 15:12
Well said Mark. It's time for the English to wake up and realise just how they're being robbed and exploited by the current McGovernment.
I hope the Conservatives though, under Cameron, aren't planning going down the same route. It seems Cameron is VERY anti English in his attitude and does a great disservice to his backbenchers and other true conservatives who joined the party to be blue, not shades of lilac, pink or Almost Red.
Posted by: Kim Gandy | August 07, 2007 at 15:12
The people of England require our own Parliament to balance the parliaments now accorded to the three other parts of the "United Kingdom".The discrepancies in benefits between the various parts are such that the whole idea of a "national"policy is ludicrous,especially when one nation is subsidising the others! Let us have the existing Westminster as a Federal Parliament and a separate chamber for an English Government.
Posted by: D.Grant | August 07, 2007 at 15:13
Well said Mark Field. It's about time more English MPs were speaking out for the interests of the English people by supporting the creation of an English Parliament.
Posted by: James Jones | August 07, 2007 at 15:19
At Long Long Last. a Conservative who has seen the light, well done Mark Field, now all you have to do is to get the hierachy to listen to you,I left the tory party and joined the English Democrats as they were the only ones who have seen what the bLiar/Brown division of the of the union has done.
All the English have ever wanted was parity and not to feel they were just the money cow for enactment of the debacle called devolution, I predict that unless the English are treated fairly that the break-up of the union is inevitable, and we will ALL become nothing more than regionalised areas of the undemocratic newly consitusionalised Europe.. so Shout it loud Mark and SHOUT it often, you really are in touch....
Posted by: S White | August 07, 2007 at 15:20
Mark Field makes some good points. It is a pity that most members of his party still do not believe in justice and democracy for the English. If the Conservatives were to champion an English Parliament and a fair settlement for England, ie abolition of the detested Barnett Formula, they would undoubtedly win the next election. It is better for them to accept that they are essentially an English party and that there is no point in looking back to the pre-asymetrical devolution era. They should challenge Brown and Scottish Labour head on.
However, in order to do this, I think they need to ditch Cameron (half-Scottish) and replace him with David Davis. I am not particularly interested in party leaders, but in a party as a whole, but in this instance I do not believe that Cameron is the right man to effect this change.
If the Conservatives continue as they are, and fail to make the case for an end to asynetrical devolution by granting democracy and fairness to England, then they and the union are finished.
The only way of preserving the union is to create an English Parliament (which will replace the House of Commons) and a UK Parliament (to replace the House of Lords).
If you believe in democracy and justice for England, then join the English Democrats Party now. The only party that is campaigning for this. I would urge Mark Field to join us.
Posted by: Adrian Key | August 07, 2007 at 15:20
As a former long standing Tory voter its gratifying to finally see that some Tory MP's are aware of the need for a parliament for England.
I,as I am sure many others will be,are pro a United Kingdom with four parliaments representing the member countries of England,Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland.
Holding a UK Parliament in the old House
of Lords is not realy as bold and as
radical as Mark Field suggests and is a common topic of conversation amongst those pro an English Parliament.
What is a good idea is Mark's suggestion of
it being funded by a per GDP levy on the national parliaments. Thus leading to the none too soon scrapping of the Barnett formula making the redistribution of the nations wealth more fair and also taking in to account those parts of the country where all our people get a better share of whats available especially in more deprived areas.
Posted by: Phil Taylor - EDP Member. | August 07, 2007 at 15:29
For once an MP who speaks for England. At last, we seem to have a friend at Westminster. My faith in politicians has been very slightly restored. One day we will have our own parliament - i just hope its during my lifetime.
Posted by: darren smith | August 07, 2007 at 15:38
"but there are a number of CCHQ tacticians - and key figures at The Daily Telegraph"
These being the key tacticians who masterminded the Ealing by-election and the Brown transition strategies? My confidence is now as high as an Old Etonian on charlie.
Posted by: Stand Up Throw Up | August 07, 2007 at 15:40
I'm just waiting for the usual cry from the committed unionists among you.
"here come the Nasty, Sour, Uneducated, Little Englanders".
Well it looks to me as if you have some in your own Party. We will not go away, neither, with your present policies, will we vote for you.
Posted by: Patrick Harris | August 07, 2007 at 15:45
How can we get equality for England (ie and English Parliament)into the Conservative manifesto?
Posted by: Terry | August 07, 2007 at 15:52
ENGLAND MP SUPPORTS ENGLAND - SHOCK
I did wonder when our English MPs were actually going to realise that if they didn't start to listen to their constituants it would all start to fall down around their ears. Maybe some of you are starting to see the light.
As the English are getting more and more fed up with the present situation, they are going to look elswhere for the solution - and that may not include being in the Union!
Posted by: Lynn Justice for England | August 07, 2007 at 15:54
Mark - it's a bit long coming, but we thank you all the same for making the point...... Afterall, it's only 9 years too late! Honestly, I have real difficulty in wondering how any self proclaimed democrat could have supported the camel of a solution on devolution in the first place. And also am incredulous that the Tories, in their role as Her Majesty's Opposition would be so uber meek in their opposition to it down the years.
Meanwhile, English cancer patients have been left to die for the want of cancer drugs freely available to all in Scotland. Meanwhile, English students are having to divvy up top ups - and then a top up on the top ups - while everyone else goes to Uni' Scot free. Meanwhile old people in England are means tested for services freely available to their contemporaries in Scotland. Meanwhile English OAPs are forced into flogging off their homes to finance their residential dotage - state sponsored obviously in Scotland. Meanwhile English kids get a turkey-twizzling 45p spent on their school meals - but in Scotland they have almost £1 per head spent on them. Meanwhile, the British lessons continue apace in English schools - but obviously not in Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish schools - they'll be too busy learning about their own national identities....
Meanwhile, the cash cow that is England is fleeced, porked and goosed out of the train load of cash to provide the spending largesse in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland - and all the great and the good of the Westminster gravy boat think nothing of it.
The bum scratching and the blue sky ruminating on the English problem is finished, over for ever. The great devolution experiment, the gammy leg of Tony Blair's legend-in-his-own-mind legacy is tottering in terminal decline and good riddance to bad rubbish. Without the biggest partner it was never going to work. We should have been the corner stone of it right from the off.... but we weren't - and now the resentment has built, the frustrations have grown and who knows where it will all end?
We too should have had our own Executive, to have our own First Minister, to act in our own interests - and be directly answerable to us - and if we do not like him we kick him out at the ballot box....
It's called democracy - and how ironic that this country of England, the founder and originator of the modern democratic model - much admired and copied throughout the world - and the producer of the world's first document setting out the rights of the individual (Magna Carta) is now wallowing in a sea of injustice and non representation that would put a banana republic to shame. How ironic it is that England is now less democratic that it was 1,200 years ago....
Nearly ten years of mendacity by a flawed English hating executive, nearly ten years of a no show Tory Opposition that has let them get away with it. Nearly ten years of English lives being sacrificed on an altar of political expediency while 'Call Me Dave' courts a non existent Scottish vote by slagging off 50 million people with his 'sour little Englanders' speech. Nearly ten years of being ignored by every single English MP (apart from a couple of noble exceptions)....
But what you have ask yourself Mark is - if the Yorkshire floods had happened with an English First Minister in power would it have taken him 10 days to visit and to pledge money to the disaster fund - and would it have been more than the 14 million that Gordon Brown offered?
Mark, do you feel the frusrations? Well, do you?
Posted by: Alfred the OK | August 07, 2007 at 16:11
Matt Wright | August 07, 2007 at 15:12
"..Most of the public like to have a sensible degree of patriotism but are not Nationalists ... dislike the whole feeling behind the attacks on MPs because they are from a particular area of Britain."
It was dismantling of the Union by devolution that created my Englandism, i.e. it was a result of the nationalism of others.
I do not "attack" MPs because they are from another area of Britain; ain't nowt wrong with a Scot being an MP of an English constituency. I do however regard it as constitutionally invalid that an MP of a Scottish constituency may get involved in matters affecting only England, whether just by parliamentary vote or, worse, by holding ministerial office.
The fact that a Prime Minister supposedly of the whole UK has signed the “Scottish Claim of Right” should be an aggravating factor, I suppose. On the other hand it was only a politician's pledge and we know how conscientiously those are observed ;-)
Even on purely pragmatic, tactical grounds it is an error for D.C. to wield his Scottishness. Scotland is lefter of centre than England, so Unionists there will mostly vote Lab or LibDem and Nationalists for SNP etc(- there are some Unionists who vote SNP, but for increased devolution rather than for independence). There no electorally significant tranches of Tory votes to be gained in Scotland but, by offering nothing more than the halfhearted sop of EVEM, there are certainly votes to be lost in England.
Scotland is proudly asserting its nationhood. England should stand equally proud.
Posted by: Ken Stevens | August 07, 2007 at 16:21
Didn't we get the most votes in England at the last election?
Posted by: ibanez | August 07, 2007 at 16:22
At last we have a sensible and credible view on this devolution mess.Mark field is to be congratulated on advocating a just and fair solution to the "English Question".Let us now hope that he will be able to bring other Conservative politicians around to his way of thinking.
Posted by: Greg | August 07, 2007 at 16:28
Well said Alfred the OK. Let us hope that Mark's idea of four, full, national parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with most of the existing powers of the House of Commons and over them a federal United Kingdom parliament will get taken up by the Conservative Party.
Posted by: Torygirl | August 07, 2007 at 16:35
Well said Ken and Alfred the OK. It is absolutely amazing that this issue has taken so long to draw traction and. One can only wonder why and what this tells us.
Posted by: Bill | August 07, 2007 at 16:40
When Northern Ireland suffered localised flooding this year, it took Gordon Brown just 3 days to give them £5m. Each household got an immediate payout of £1,000 and councils were given the go-ahead to provide de-humidifiers to dry out homes, begin clearance of streets and other public areas and assist private householder to clear up their homes and gardens. All this is paid for from English taxes.
In Scotland, in 2002, Moray council spent £1.2m buying 48 houses in Forres from the Ministry of Defence to house families evacuated from their flood damaged homes. They also leased 24 flats in Elgin and re-opened a former nursing home there to provide further accommodation.
Just 300 people were evactuated from their homes, compared to the tens of thousands in Yorkshire,(not to mention the thousands in the Eastern areas) yet the Scottish Executive, (thanks to the English taxpayer) was able to provide funding of nearly £1.5m to help Moray Council cover the costs of dealing with the flood damage.
In England, with more than 30,000 home owners affected in much of Yorkshire, our unwanted and unelectedtScottish Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, took more than two weeks to even acknowledge us.
Once again, we in England are being deliberately discriminated against. We are nothing more than a Celtic piggy bank to this government. Why aren't our own politicians rising up and demanding fair treatment and an English Parliament for their English constituents? We must all write and demand that they do. We've been patient for long enough. Enough is enough!
The English Democrats Party was formed with the intention of protecting English interests within England and the need for such a Party has never been clearer. I would urge all who feel as I do about the constant plundering of English assets for the benefit of non-English Governments/Assemblies to join us at www.englishdemocrats.org.uk
Posted by: D. G. R. | August 07, 2007 at 16:47
Hello, Conservatives at home.
I am pleased to see that the waking up and smelling the coffee thing is kicking in, finally.
Super heavyweight intellectual and strategic thinker, Gordon Brown, is planning to win power sometime soon rather than just being given it for his birthday. He has every option covered apart from the blatantly obvious and greatest threat to his stratagem: England.
Gordy may like to pretend that England is a sideshow but this is what Dr Ian Davis of the British American Security Information thinks:
'The next UK general election must be held on or before 3 June 2010. It is possible that it may be held in June 2009 to coincide with elections to the European Parliament or even as early as Spring 2008, if a confident Gordon Brown were to take a sustained lead in the opinion polls. There are four key areas in which the UK election battleground will be fought:
1.
The Economy.
2.
Health
3.
The English/Scottish divide (The ‘West Lothian Question’):
4.
Foreign Policy'
England is one of the key four battle areas? Gordon is drafting a battle plan that completely ignores a critical threat which is a wee bit like a general ignoring the enemy armoured divisions because he doesn't like them.
Source: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4412
When will Cameron use the armour?
Posted by: englandism | August 07, 2007 at 16:52
Irrespective of an MP's party allegiances, his or her first priority should be consideration for the welfare and requirements of his constituents, who elected him. Quite clearly the MP's representing English constituents are being negligent; irrespective of their party colours.
It should be demanded by all MP's, that English voters are given the same opportunity that has been given to all other voters in Britain, and that means a referendum on how the English are to be governed.
I'm sure the EDP could help with orchestrating such a referendum.
Posted by: Len Hart | August 07, 2007 at 16:55
Mark I certainly welcome your comments regarding the current inequalities of government and the lobsided devolution that seeks to undermine the English in their own country. Why aren't all the other English MP's up in arms? The Conservative party needs to take a long hard look at their position....your majority of support is in England, and yet your party continues to ignore the growing concerns of its potential voters...why? Statements from Mr Cameron like 'their is a lot of Scottish Blood running through these veins'give us an indication to where his true loyalties are grounded? Perhaps he should jump into bed with Gordon Brown and Menzies Cambell, Alistair Darling and Charles Kennedy who have all signed a Scottish Claim to Right whichI find totally un-acceptable!
Posted by: David Ford Lane (English Democrat) | August 07, 2007 at 16:59
Mark's idea is brilliant. Is there any hope of it becoming party policy?
Posted by: lucysharp | August 07, 2007 at 17:14
I see Patrick Harris has been urging people to 'get onto this blog and tell them some home truths'on the English Democrat Party website. I was wondering why so many people who do not usually come onto this have taken over this thread.
Posted by: malcolm | August 07, 2007 at 17:16
I used to be a Tory voter but that went out with Margaret Thatcher. For the first time in years I am at a loss as to who to vote for. David Cameron is not at all popular or so it seems and I trust Gordon Brown not a jot. This mistrust of Brown is mainly because of the fact that he appears to be extremely two-faced, wearing one for his Scottish Constituants and one for us English. The only way that any party will be guaranteed to get my vote is by making it completely and sincerely clear that they will follow the lead of Mark Field and advocate an English Parliament. England, who houses the Mother of Parliaments has no democratic rights any longer since the devolution of the rest of the UK. Fair enough - we can go it alone, but it is wrong that we should subsidise (let alone pay for) the Scottish Parliament, only to find that the Scots are privy to advantages we lack such as Cancer Drugs etc. Get the Tory party to include this in its Manifesto and I can assure you that you will get my vote and many more besides. We need a Party we can trust regardless of their traditional roots!
Posted by: Anne Davies | August 07, 2007 at 17:29
Oh how I yearn for an English Parliament to redress the vicious anti English stance of this Scottish dominated Labour government. If Cameron wants to get into No 10 he needs to realise that his pro Union posturing does him and his party no favours in England. He cannot take English votes for granted unless he takes action to sort out the democratic deficit and immigration and crime.
Posted by: Harry Basset | August 07, 2007 at 17:31
At last an Englishman in the Conservative Party willing to speak out!
The people who say they are Unionists are quite willing to see England broke up via the Regions ,or whatever the Labour Party think up next.
Sacrifice England to save the Union;"a small price to pay"as Mr. Blair once stated
Posted by: Hope! | August 07, 2007 at 17:33
malcolm | August 07, 17:16
"..I was wondering why so many people who do not usually come onto this have taken over this thread.."
-- Or you could put a positive slant on it and take it as an indication that, if the Conservatives seized upon the topic (as with EU Referendum), then votes could be garnered from those who would otherwise vote English Democrat, on the basis that they are people who want to see the outcome achieved on behalf of our nation rather than for narrow party political gain. Electorally better for ED to keep the subject as a unique jewel in their manifesto than let another party purloin it, maybe?
If you feel that this thread has been rather onesided, where are the legions of grassroot Tories arguing here with emotion & logic for continued Union? Matt Wright does so honourably, whilst acknowledging the need for reform of arrangements; Simon Newman, like me, is emotionally a Unionist but acknowledges that things have gone too far. You? - a couple of peripheral points and a couple of snipes.
Those ED interlopers are praising the ideas of a Tory MP, They are an opportunity, not a threat!
Posted by: Ken Stevens | August 07, 2007 at 17:41